Jane Does V MSU, Lawrence Nassar, USA Gymnastics

Case 1:17-cv-00029-GJQ-ESC ECF No. 28 filed 02/14/17 PageID.
1283 Page 1 of 79
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - SOUTHERN DIVISION
RACHAEL DENHOLLANDER, JANE

A. DOE by next friend JANE B. DOE;
JANE C. DOE; JANE D. DOE;JANE Case No.: 1:17-cv-00029-GJQ-ESC
E. DOE; JANE F. DOE;JANE G.
DOE; JANE H. DOE;JANE J. DOE; Hon. Gordon J. Quist
JANE K. DOE by next friend JANE L.
DOE; JANE M. DOE; JANE N. DOE;
JANE O. DOE; JANE P. DOE by next
friend JANE Q. DOE; JANE R. DOE; Complaint and Jury Demand of
JANE S. DOE by next friend JANE T. Intervener-Plaintiffs Jane GMSU Doe,
DOE; JANE U. DOE; JANE X. DOE, Jane HMSU Doe, Jane IMSU Doe,
JANE Y. DOE, and Jane JMSU Doe
Plaintiffs,
&
JANE GMSU DOE; JANE HMSU DOE;

JANE IMSU DOE; and JANE JMSU
DOE
Intervener-Plaintiffs,
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY;

THE BOARDOF TRUSTEES OF
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY;
LAWRENCE GERARD NASSAR
(individual and official capacity); USA
GYMNASTICS, INC.; TWISTARS USA,
INC. d/b/a GEDDERTS TWISTARS
GYMNASTICS CLUB USA,
Defendants.
1
Case 1:17-cv-00029-GJQ-ESC ECF No. 28 filed 02/14/17 PageID.1284 Page 2 of 79
_______________________________________________________________________
Stephen R. Drew (P24323) John C. Manly (CA 149080)
Adam C. Sturdivant (P72285) Vince W. Finaldi (CA 238279)
Drew, Cooper & Anding Alex E. Cunny (CA 291567)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Manly, Stewart & Finaldi
80 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Grand Rapids, MI 49503 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Ph.: (616) 454-8300 Irvine, CA 92612
E: sdrew@dca-lawyers.com Ph.: (949) 252-9990
E: asturdivant@dca-lawyers.com E: jmanly@manlystewart.com
E: vfinaldi@manlystewart.com
E: acunny@manlystewart.com
James White (P56946)
John W. Fraser (P79908)
David S. Mittleman (P37490)
Alexander S. Rusek (P77581)
Mick S. Grewal (P48082)
White Law PLLC
Nolan L. Erickson (P72661)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Y. Doe ChurchWyble PC, a division of
2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
Grewal Law, PLLC
Okemos, Michigan 48864 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane AMSU
Ph.: (517) 316-1195
Doe, Jane BMSU Doe, Jane CMSU
Fax: (517) 316-1197 Doe, Jane DMSU Doe, Jane EMSU
W: www.whitelawpllc.com
Doe, Jane FMSU Doe, Jane GMSU
E: jameswhite@whitelawpllc.com Doe, Jane HMSU Doe, Jane IMSU Doe,
E: johnfraser@whitelawpllc.com
And Jane JMSU Doe
E: alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com
2290 Science Parkway
Okemos, Michigan 48864
Ph.: (517) 372-1011
Fax: (517) 372-1031
E: dmittleman@churchwyble.com
E: mgrewal@4grewal.com
E: nerickson@churchwyble.com
________________________________________________________________________
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND ..................................................................................... 1-79
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION ................................................... 6-11
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.......................................................................................... 11-13
III. PARTIES AND KEY INDIVIDUALS ............................................................................. 13-15
IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................... 15-23
V. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................... 23-27
A. Jane GMSU Doe ..................................................................................................... 23-24
B. Jane HMSU Doe...................................................................................................... 24-25
C. Jane IMSU Doe ....................................................................................................... 25-26
D. Jane JMSU Doe....................................................................................................... 26-27
VI. CLAIMS AGAINST MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEFENDANTS................... 27-51
A. COUNT ONE Violations of Title IX ................................................................... 27-31
B. COUNT TWO Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. 1983 ................................ 31-35
C. COUNT THREE Failure to Train and Supervise, 42 U.S.C. 1983 .................... 35-37
D. COUNT FOUR Gross Negligence v. MSU, Nassar ............................................ 37-38
E. COUNT FIVE Negligence v. MSU, Nassar .......................................................... 39-40
F. COUNT SIX Vicarious Liability ........................................................................... 40-41
G. COUNT SEVEN Express/Implied Agency ......................................................... 41-42
H. COUNT EIGHT Negligent Supervision .............................................................. 42-44
I. COUNT NINE Negligent Failure to Warn or Protect ........................................... 44-46
J. COUNT TEN Negligent Failure to Train or Educate ............................................ 46-47
3
K. COUNT ELEVEN Negligent Retention ............................................................... 47-48
L. COUNT TWELVE - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ......................... 48-49
M. COUNT THIRTEEN Fraud and Misrepresentation ............................................ 49-51
VII. CLAIMS AGAINST USA GYMNASTICS .................................................................... 51-63
A. COUNT FOURTEEN Gross Negligence v. USAG, Nassar ............................... 51-53
B. COUNT FIFTEEN Negligence v. USAG, Nassar ............................................... 53-54
C. COUNT SIXTEEN Vicarious Liability .............................................................. 54-55
D. COUNT SEVENTEEN Express/Implied Agency .............................................. 55-56
E. COUNT EIGHTEEN Negligent Supervision ...................................................... 56-57
F. COUNT NINETEEN Negligent Failure to Warn or Protect ............................... 57-59
G. COUNT TWENTY Negligent Failure to Train or Educate ................................ 59-60
H. COUNT TWENTY-ONE Negligent Retention ................................................... 60-61
I. COUNT TWENTY-TWO Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ............... 61-62
J. COUNT TWENTY-THREE- Fraud and Misrepresentation .................................... 62-63
VIII. CLAIMS AGAINST TWISTARS .................................................................................. 64-73
A. COUNT TWENTY-FOUR Gross Negligence v. Twistars, Nassar ..................... 64-65
B. COUNT TWENTY-FIVE Negligence v. Twistars, Nassar ................................ 65-67
C. COUNT TWENTY-SIX Express/Implied Agency ............................................. 67-68
D. COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN Negligent Supervision ........................................... 68-69
E. COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT Negligent Failure to Warn or Protect ..................... 69-71
F. COUNT TWENTY-NINE - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ............. 71-72
G. COUNT THIRTY Fraud and Misrepresentation .................................................. 72-73
IX. CLAIMS AGAINST NASSAR ......................................................................................... 74-76
4
A. COUNT THIRTY-ONE Assault and Battery ...................................................... 74-75
B. COUNT THIRTY-TWO Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ................. 75-76
X. DAMAGES ...............................................................................................................................76
REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................ 77-78
JURY DEMAND ...........................................................................................................................79
5
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
NOW COME Intervening Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys CHURCHWYBLE,
P.C., a division of GREWAL LAW, PLLC, and hereby allege and state as follows:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil action for declaratory, injunctive, equitable, and monetary relief for injuries
sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the acts, conduct, and omissions of Lawrence Nassar,
D.O., Michigan State University (MSU), USA Gymnastics (USAG), and Twistars
USA, Inc. (Twistars) and their respective employees, representatives, and agents,
relating to sexual assault, abuse, molestation, and nonconsensual sexual touching and
harassment by Defendant Nassar against Plaintiffs, all female, many of whom were minors
when the sexual assaults took place.
2. With the exception of Jane JMSU Doe, Plaintiffs are or were young athletes participating
in youth sports, including gymnastics and dancing. Jane JMSU Doe was in her 30s seeking
treatment for a knee complaint.
3. Defendant Nassar came highly recommended to Plaintiffs as a renowned orthopedic sports
medicine physician, purportedly well-respected in the sports medicine community,
specifically in the gymnastics community as the Team Physician for the United States
Gymnastics team.
4. Plaintiffs and their parents had no reason to suspect Defendant Nassar was anything other
than a competent and ethical physician.
5. From approximately 1996 to 2016 Defendant Nassar worked for Michigan State University
in various positions and capacities.
6
6. From 1986 to approximately 2015 Defendant Nassar also worked for USA Gymnastics in
various positions and capacities.
7. For over 20 years, Defendant Nassar had unfettered access to young female athletes
through the Sports Medicine Clinic at MSU, and through his involvement with USAG and
Twistars, who referred athletes to his care.
8. To gain Plaintiffs trust, at appointments, Defendant Nassar would give some Plaintiffs
gifts such as t-shirts, pins, flags, leotards, and other items, some with USAG logos and
others without.
9. From 1996 to 2004, under the guise of treatment, Defendant Nassar sexually assaulted,
abused, and molested Plaintiffs Jane GMSU Doe, Jane HMSU Doe, and Jane IMSU Doe,
all of whom were minors during at least some portion of this time, by nonconsensual
vaginal and anal digital penetration or other nonconsensual sexual contact and without the
use of gloves or lubricant.
10. Plaintiffs Jane GMSU Doe, Jane HMSU Doe, Jane IMSU Doe, and Jane JMSU Doe were
seeking treatment for hip, back, and knee complaints.
11 In 1997 and or 1998, under the guise of treatment, Defendant Nassar sexually assaulted,
abused, and molested Plaintiff Jane JMSU Doe by nonconsensual vaginal and anal digital
penetration and without the use of gloves or lubricant.
12. In 1997 or 1998, an athlete reported to MSU gymnastics coach Kathie Klages concerns
regarding Defendant Nassars conduct and treatment, but Klages dissuaded the athlete
from completing a formal report by warning the athlete the report would have serious
consequences for her (the athlete) and Nassar.
7
13. In 1999, a MSU student athlete reported to trainers and her coach who were employees of
MSU concerns about Defendant Nassars conduct and treatment, yet MSU failed to take
any action in response to her complaints.
14. In 2000, another MSU student athlete reported to trainers concerns about Defendant
Nassars conduct and treatment, yet again MSU failed to take any action in response to
her complaints.
15. Many Plaintiffs were seen alone with only the individual Plaintiff and Defendant Nassar in
the room, without chaperones.
16. At other times, Defendant Nassar would position himself in a manner in which parents or
chaperones in the room could not see his conduct.
17. Because MSU took no action to investigate the 1997 or 1998, 1999, and 2000 complaints
and took no corrective action, from 2000 to 2016, under the guise of treatment, Plaintiffs
Jane GMSU Doe and Jane HMSU Doe were sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by
Defendant Nassar by nonconsensual vaginal and anal digital penetration, nonconsensual
sexual touching of the vaginal area without the use of gloves or lubricant and by
nonconsensual touching and groping of their breasts.
18. While most victims were assaulted at MSU, other victims were assaulted at Twistars.
19. Additional complaints regarding Defendant Nassars conduct surfaced in 2014. A victim
reported she had an appointment with Defendant Nassar to address hip pain and was
sexually abused and molested by Defendant Nassar when he cupped her buttocks,
massaged her breast and vaginal area, and became sexually aroused.1
1
See, At MSU: Assault, harassment and secrecy. Matt Mencarini, December 15, 2016. Available
at, http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2016/12/15/michigan-state-sexual-
assault-harassment-larry-nassar/94993582/. (Last accessed January 5, 2017.)
8
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant MSU investigated the 2014 complaints through
their Office of Institutional Equity, and although the victim reported to Defendant MSU
certain facts, some were omitted from the investigative report including but not limited to
the following:
a. Defendant Nassar was sexually aroused while touching her;
b. The appointment with Defendant Nassar did not end until she physically removed
his hands from her body.
21. Three months after initiating the investigation, in July 2014, the victims complaints were
dismissed and Defendant MSU determined she didnt understand the nuanced difference
between sexual assault and an appropriate medical procedure and deemed Defendant
Nassars conduct medically appropriate and Not of a sexual nature.2
22. Following the investigation, upon information and belief Defendant Nassar became subject
to new institutional guidelines, one of which it is believed was that Defendant Nassar
was not to examine or treat patients alone.3
23. Defendant Nassar continued to treat patients alone.
24. Following the investigation, between approximately 2014 and 2016, additional girls and
young women were sexually assaulted by Defendant Nassar.
25. Through his position with MSU, his notoriety, and support by USAG and Twistars,
Defendant Nassar used his position of authority as a medical professional to abuse
Plaintiffs without any reasonable supervision by MSU or USAG.
2
Id.
3
Id.
9
26. Defendant Nassar carried out these acts without fully explaining the treatment or
obtaining consent of Plaintiffs or their parents.
27. All of Defendant Nassars acts were conducted under the guise of providing medical care
at his office at Michigan State University or at Twistars.
28. The failure to give proper notice or to obtain consent for the purported treatment from
Plaintiffs or their parents robbed them of the opportunity to reject the treatment.
29. Defendant Nassar used his position of trust and confidence in an abusive manner causing
Plaintiffs to suffer a variety of injuries including shock, humiliation, emotional distress and
related physical manifestations thereof, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, and
loss of enjoyment of life.
30. In September 2016, a story was published regarding a complaint filed with Defendant
MSUs Police Department titled Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,
which included Plaintiff Denhollanders allegations against Defendant Nassar.
31. Following the September 2016 publication, other victims began coming forward after
recognizing that they were victims of sexual abuse at a time when most of them were
minors.
32. Plaintiffs have been forced to relive the trauma of the sexual assaults.
33. In summer 2015, USAG relieved Defendant Nassar of his duties after becoming aware of
concerns about his actions, yet USAG failed to inform Michigan State University of the
circumstances regarding his dismissal.
34. As early as 1997, representatives of Michigan State University were made aware of
Defendant Nassars conduct, yet failed to appropriately respond to allegations, resulting in
the sexual assault, abuse, and molestation of Plaintiffs through approximately 2016.
10
35. Michigan State Universitys deliberate indifference before, during, and after the sexual
assault, abuse, and molestation of Plaintiffs was in violation of Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., 42 U.S. C. 1983, as well as other Federal
and State laws.
36. MSU and USAGs failure to properly supervise Defendant Nassar and their negligence in
retaining Defendant Nassar was in violation of Michigan common law.
37. In late November 2016, Defendant Nassar was arrested and charged in Ingham County,
Michigan on three charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13.4
38. In mid-December 2016, Defendant Nassar was indicted, arrested, and charged in Federal
Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan on charges of possession of child pornography and
receipt/attempted receipt of child pornography.
39. The acts, conduct, and omissions of Defendants Michigan State University, USA
Gymnastics, and Twistars, and their policies, customs, and practices with respect to
investigating sexual assault allegations severely compromised the safety and health of
Plaintiffs and an unknown number of individuals, and have resulted in repeated instances
of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation of Plaintiffs by Defendant Nassar, which has been
devastating for Plaintiffs and their families.
40. This action arises from Defendants blatant disregard for Plaintiffs federal and state rights,
and Defendants deliberately indifferent and unreasonable response to physician-on-
patient/physician-on-student sexual assault, abuse, and molestation.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4
State of Michigan, Ingham County Circuit Court Case No. 1603031.
11
41. This action is brought pursuant to Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20
U.S.C. 1681, et seq., as more fully set forth herein.
42. This is also an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
43. Subject matter jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1331 which gives district courts
jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the
United States.
44. Subject matter jurisdiction is also founded upon 28 U.S.C. 1343 which gives district
courts original jurisdiction over any civil actions authorized by law to be brought by any
person to redress the deprivation, under color of any State Law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution
of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of
all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, and any civil action to recover
damages or to secure equitable relief under any Act of Congress providing for the
protection of civil rights.
45. Plaintiffs further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1367(a) to hear and decide claims arising under state law that are so related to the claims
within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or
controversy.
46. The claims are cognizable under the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 20
U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and under Michigan Law.
47. The events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Ingham County, Michigan which sits in
the Southern Division of the Western District of Michigan.
12
48. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)(2), in that this is the judicial district in which the events
giving rise to the claim occurred.
III. PARTIES AND KEY INDIVIDUALS
49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous
paragraphs.
50. The names of the Plaintiffs have been withheld from this Complaint to protect their
identities as Plaintiffs were minor children at the time the sexual abuse occurred and the
allegations involve injuries of a personal and sensitive nature.5
51. Plaintiff Jane GMSU Doe is a female and is a resident of Michigan. She was a minor for
at least a portion of the time she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant
Nassar.
52. Plaintiff Jane HMSU Doe is a female and is a resident of Michigan. She was a minor for
at least a portion of the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by
Defendant Nassar.
53. Plaintiff Jane IMSU Doe is a female and is a resident of Michigan. She was a minor for at
least a portion of the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant
Nassar.
54. Plaintiff Jane JMSU Doe is a female and is a resident of Michigan.
55. Defendant Lawrence Larry Nassar, is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, and is a resident
of Michigan.
5
Plaintiffs will seek an Order of the Court regarding disclosure of Plaintiffs identities and all
conditions for disclosure.
13
56. Defendant Michigan State University (hereinafter, Defendant MSU) was at all relevant
times and continues to be a public university organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Michigan.
57. Defendant Michigan State University receives federal financial assistance and is therefore
subject to Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
58. Defendant The Board of Trustees of Michigan State University (hereinafter, Defendant
MSU Trustees) is the governing body for Michigan State University.
59. Defendant MSU and Defendant MSU Trustees are hereinafter collectively referred to as
the MSU Defendants.
60. Lou Anna K. Simon is the current President of Defendant MSU, appointed in
approximately January 2005. Prior to her appointment as President, Ms. Simon held several
administrative roles including assistant provost for general academic administration,
associate provost, and provost and vice president for academic affairs during her career
with MSU.
61. M. Peter McPherson is the immediate Past President of Defendant MSU, and served as
President from approximately 1993 2004.
62. William D. Strampel, D.O. is the Dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine at Michigan
State University serving as Dean since approximately April 2002 and as Acting Dean
between December 2001 and April 2002.
63. Jeffrey R. Kovan, D.O. is or was the Director of Division of Sports Medicine at Michigan
State University.
14
64. Defendant United States of America Gymnastics (hereinafter Defendant USAG) was and
continues to be an organization incorporated in Indiana, authorized to conduct business and
conducting business throughout the United States, including but not limited to Michigan.
65. Steve Penny is the current president of Defendant USAG, named in approximately April
2005, who is currently responsible for the overall management and strategic planning of
Defendant USAG.
66. Robert Colarossi is the past president of Defendant USAG and held the position from
approximately 1998 to 2005, and during that time was responsible for the overall
management and strategic planning of Defendant USAG.
67. Defendant Twistars USA, Inc. d/b/a Gedderts Twistars Gymnastics Club USA
(hereinafter, Defendant Twistars) was and continues to be an organization incorporated
in Michigan.
68. John Geddert is the owner and operator of Twistars USA, Inc. d/b/a Gedderts Twistars
Gymnastics Club USA.
IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
paragraphs.
70. At all relevant times, Defendant Nassar maintained an office at MSU in East Lansing,
Michigan.
71. At all relevant times, Defendants MSU, MSU Trustees, and Nassar were acting under color
of law, to wit, under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages
of the State of Michigan and/or Defendant Michigan State University.
15
72. At all relevant times, including the years 1996 to 2016, Defendant Nassar was acting in the
scope of his employment or agency with Defendant MSU.
scope of his employment or agency with Defendant USAG.
scope of his agency with Defendant Twistars.
75. Defendant Nassar graduated from Michigan State University with a Doctor of Osteopathic
Medicine degree in approximately 1993.
76. Defendant Nassar was employed by and/or an agent of Defendant USAG from
approximately 1986 to 2015, serving in various positions including but not limited to:
a. Certified Athletic Trainer;
b. Osteopathic Physician;
c. National Medical Director;
d. National Team Physician, USA Gymnastics;
e. National Team Physician, USA Gymnastics Womens Artistic Gymnastics
National Team.
77. Defendant Nassar was employed by Defendant MSU from approximately 1996 to 2016 in
various positions including but not limited to:
a. Associate Professor, Defendant MSUs Division of Sports Medicine, Department
of Radiology, College of Osteopathic Medicine;
b. Team Physician, Defendant MSUs Mens and Womens Gymnastics Team;
c. Team Physician, Defendant MSUs Mens and Womens Track and Field Teams;
d. Team Physician, Defendant MSUs Mens and Womens Crew Team;
16
e. Team Physician, Defendant MSUs Intercollegiate Athletics;
f. Medical Consultant, Defendant MSUs Wharton Center for the Performing Arts;
g. Advisor, Student Osteopathic Association of Sports Medicine.
78. Defendant Twistars is a gymnastics facility with which Defendant Nassar affiliated from
its inception in or around 1996.
79. John Geddert, owner and operator of Twistars USA, Inc. d/b/a Gedderts Twistars
Gymnastics Club USA served as the USA World and Olympic Womens Gymnastics Team
Head Coach.
80. Mr. Geddert regularly recommended Defendant Nassar to members of Defendant Twistars
as a reputable physician.
81. For a period of time, Defendant Twistars displayed a photo of Defendant Nassar at its
facility.
82. As an agent of Defendant Twistars, Defendant Nassar regularly provided services and
treatment to Defendant Twistars members and Defendant USAGs members on Defendant
Twistars premises.
83. As a physician of Osteopathic Medicine, Defendant Nassars medical care and treatment
should have consisted largely of osteopathic adjustments and kinesiology treatment to
patients, including students and student-athletes of Defendant MSU.
84. Defendant Nassar is not and has never been a medical doctor of obstetrics or gynecology.
85. While employed by Defendants MSU and USAG, Defendant Nassar practiced medicine at
Defendant MSUs Sports Medicine Clinic, a facility at MSU.
86. During his employment, agency, and representation with the MSU Defendants, Defendant
USAG, and Defendant Twistars, Defendant Nassar sexually assaulted, abused, and
17
molested Plaintiffs by engaging in nonconsensual sexual touching, assault, and harassment
including but not limited to digital vaginal and anal penetration.
87. The State of Michigans Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Occupational
Health Standards regarding Bloodborne Infectious Diseases mandates use of gloves when
exposed to potentially infectious material, including vaginal secretions.6
88. In 1997 or 1998, a female gymnastics participant, who was a minor at the time, told MSU
gymnastics head coach Kathie Klages about concerns the participant had with Nassars
treatment. Klages convinced the participant not to file a formal complaint because
Klages intimidated the participant by stating there would be serious consequences to her
(the participant) and Nassar.
89. In or around 1998, a parent of a gymnast at Defendant Twistars facility complained to Mr.
Geddert regarding Dr. Nassars conduct, yet the concerns and allegations went
unaddressed.
90. In or around 1999 the MSU Defendants were also put on notice of Defendant Nassars
conduct by a MSU student athlete after she complained to MSU employees, including
trainers and her head coach, that Defendant Nassar touched her vaginal area although she
was seeking treatment for an injured hamstring.
91. Despite her complaints to MSU representatives, the athletes concerns and allegations went
unaddressed.
92. In approximately 2000, a female student athlete, a member of Defendant MSUs Womens
Softball Team, was sexually assaulted and abused during treatment by Defendant Nassar
6
See, Michigan Administrative Code, R. 325.70001, et seq., Available at
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part554_35632_7.pdf. Last accessed, January
5, 2017.
18
and reported Defendant Nassars conduct to Defendant MSUs employees, including
trainers.
93. Despite her complaints to MSU employees, agents, and representatives, the athletes
concerns and allegations went unaddressed in violation of reporting policies and
procedures and Title IX and in a manner that was reckless, deliberately indifferent, and
grossly negligent.
94. Because MSU took no action to investigate the 1999 or 2000 complaints and took no
corrective action, from 2000 to 2016, under the guise of treatment, Plaintiffs Jane GMSU
Doe and Jane HMSU Doe were also sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant
Nassar by vaginal and anal digital penetration, without the use of gloves or lubricant and
by touching and groping their breasts.
95. In 2014, following receipt of an unrelated complaint regarding a sexual assault on
Defendant MSUs campus, between 2014 and 2015 the U.S. Department of Educations
Office of Civil Rights (hereinafter OCR) conducted an investigation regarding the
complainants allegations, another complaint regarding sexual assault and retaliation from
2011, and Defendant MSUs response to said complaints, and their general policies,
practices, and customs pertaining to their responsibilities under Title IX.7
7
See, Letter from U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights to Michigan State
University, September 1, 2015, OCR Docket #15-11-2098, #15-14-2113. Available at
https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/michigan-state-letter.pdf, last accessed January 4,
2017.
19
96. The OCR concluded their investigation in 2015 and presented Defendant MSU with a
twenty-one page agreement containing measures and requirements to resolve the 2011 and
2014 complaints and to bring Defendant MSU in compliance with Title IX.8
97. While the OCR was conducting their investigation, additional complaints regarding
Defendant Nassars conduct surfaced in 2014. The victim reported she had an appointment
with Defendant Nassar to address hip pain and was sexually abused and molested by
Defendant Nassar when he cupped her buttocks, massaged her breast and vaginal area, and
he became sexually aroused.9
98. Upon information and belief, Defendant MSU investigated the 2014 complaints through
their Office of Institutional Equity.
99. However, the victim reported to Defendant MSU facts which were omitted or withheld
from the investigative report including but not limited to the following
100. Three months after initiating the investigation, in July 2014, the victims complaints were
Nassars conduct medically appropriate and Not of a sexual nature.10
8
See, Resolution Agreement, August 28, 2015, OCR Document #15-11-2098, #15-14-2133.
Available at, https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/michigan-state-agreement.pdf. Last
accessed January 5, 2017.
9
See, At MSU: Assault, harassment and secrecy. Matt Mencarini, December 15, 2016. Available
at, http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2016/12/15/michigan-state-sexual-
assault- harassment-larry-nassar/94993582/. Last accessed January 5, 2017.
10
Id.
20
101. Following the investigation, upon information and belief, Defendant Nassar became
subject to new institutional guidelines, one of which it is believed was that Defendant
Nassar was not to examine or treat patients alone.11
102. After receiving allegations of athlete concerns, in approximately summer 2015
Defendant USAG relieved Defendant Nassar of his duties.12
103. At no time did Defendant USAG inform Defendants MSU, MSU Trustees, or other MSU
representatives of the concerns that led to Defendant Nassar being relieved from his duties
with Defendant USAG.
104. From July 2014 to September 2016, despite complaints about Nassars conduct, Defendant
MSU continued to permit Defendant Nassar unfettered access to female athletes without
adequate oversight or supervision to ensure he was complying with the new guidelines.
105. Plaintiffs were made aware of Defendant Nassars widespread sexual abuse on or around
September 12, 2016 or shortly thereafter through related media coverage.13
106. Defendant Nassars employment ended with Defendant MSU on approximately September
20, 2016 only after the MSU Defendants became aware that:
a. Defendants Nassar and USAG were sued by a former Olympian who alleged she
was sexually assaulted by Defendant Nassar;14 and,
11
Id.
12
See, Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of abuse, Mark Alesia, Marisa Kwiatkowski,
Tim Evans, September 12, 2016. Available at, http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/09/12/
former-usa-gymnastics-doctor-accused-abuse/89995734/. Last accessed, January 5, 2017.
13
Id.
14
See, Case No. 34-2016-00200075, filed with the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sacramento, September 8, 2016. A copy of the Complaint is available at
https://www.documentcloud.org/ documents/3106054-JANE-JD-COMPLAINT-Signed.html.
Last accessed, January 5, 2017.
21
b. A former patient of Defendant Nassar, Plaintiff Rachel Denhollander, filed a
criminal complaint with the Michigan State University Police Department
alleging Defendant Nassar sexually assaulted her when she was 15 years
old and seeking treatment for back pain as a result of gymnastics. Plaintiff
Denhollanders allegations of sexual assault by Defendant Nassar included
but were not limited to:
A. Massaging her genitals;
B. Penetrating her vagina and anus with his finger and thumb; and,
C. Unhooking her bra and massaging her breasts.15
107. In late November 2016, Defendant Nassar was arrested and charged in Ingham County,
Michigan on three charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13,
and was later released on $1 million bond.16
108. In mid-December 2016, Defendant Nassar was indicted, arrested, and charged in Federal
Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan on charges of possession of child pornography and
receipt/attempted receipt of child pornography.
109. According to the federal indictment,17 Defendant Nassar:
a. Knowingly received and attempted to receive child pornography between
approximately September 18, 2004 and December 1, 2004;
15
See, Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of abuse, Mark Alesia, Marisa Kwiatkowski,
Tim Evans, September 12, 2016. Available at, http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/09/12/
former-usa-gymnastics-doctor-accused-abuse/89995734/. Last accessed, January 5, 2017.
16
State of Michigan, Ingham County Circuit Court Case No. 1603031.
17
1:16-cr-00242 PageID.1-4.
22
b. Knowingly possessed thousands of images of child pornography between
approximately February 6, 2003 and September 20, 2016 including images
involving a minor who had not attained 12 years of age.
110. To the best of Plaintiffs knowledge, Defendant Nassar is in federal custody pending the
child pornography criminal charges.
V. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. JANE GMSU DOE
paragraphs.
112. Plaintiff Jane GMSU Doe treated with Dr. Nassar at his office at MSU from 1999 to 2004.
113. In 1999, Plaintiff Jane GMSU Doe was a minor, 15 years old, and a virgin.
114. Plaintiff Jane GMSU Doe presented to Dr. Nassar with complaints of injuries to her hip
suffered through playing soccer.
115. Between 1999 and 2004, at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar would
direct Plaintiff Jane GMSU Does to disrobe from the waist down, begin massaging her,
and then conduct what Nassar described as a spinal evaluation involving digital vaginal
and anal penetration without gloves.
116. Defendant Nassar would engage in inappropriate sexual dialog with Plaintiff Jane GMSU
Doe.
117. These treatments would occur approximately 3 times per month, and the vast majority
occurred when no one else was present in the examination room.
23
118. On multiple occasions during these treatments, Plaintiff Jane GMSU Doe perceived
Defendant Nassar to be grunting and breathing heavily. Following the treatments,
Nassar would look Plaintiff directly in the eye, ask her if she felt better, and hug her.
117. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration or to
touch Plaintiff Jane GMSU Does vagina, anus, or breasts.
118. Defendant Nassar gave Plaintiff GMSU Doe several gifts to win her trust, including
pictures and other trinkets. Nassar also asked Plaintiff to call him Larry rather than Dr.
Nassar.
119. Plaintiff Jane GMSU Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Dr. Nassar for issues related
to obstetrics or gynecology (hereinafter OB/GYN).
120. Based on Defendant Nassars representations, Plaintiff Jane GMSU Doe believed the
treatment she received to be legitimate medical procedures until reports surfaced in or
about September 2016 of similar allegations made by other women.
B. JANE HMSU DOE
paragraphs.
122. Plaintiff Jane HMSU Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU beginning
in 1998.
123. At that time, Jane HMSU Doe was a minor, approximately 17 years old.
124. Plaintiff Jane HMSU Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of hip pain due
to a gymnastics injury.
24
125. At numerous appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar directed Plaintiff to lay
on her stomach, he would massage her shoulders and back, and then digitally penetrate
Plaintiff Jane HMSU Does vagina without prior notice.
126. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration.
127. Plaintiff Jane HMSU Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Dr. Nassar for OB/GYN
issues.
128. Based on Defendant Nassars representations, Plaintiff Jane HMSU Doe believed the
C. JANE IMSU DOE
paragraphs.
130. Plaintiff Jane IMSU Doe was a participant in Spartan youth gymnastics programs.
131. Plaintiff began treating with Defendant Nassar in 1997 at his office at MSU.
132. Plaintiff Jane IMSU Doe presented to Dr. Nassar with complaints of low back pain
approximately once a week.
133. At the time of her treatments with Defendant Nassar, Plaintiff IMSU Doe was a minor,
approximately 14 or 15 years old when she began seeing him and was a virgin.
134. At the beginning of most of these appointments, Defendant Nassar would hug Jane IMSU
Doe and take other steps to make her feel special.
135. Defendant Nassar engaged Plaintiff in sexually suggestive conversations, asking if she had
a boyfriend and how far they would go in terms of sexual activity.
25
136. On several occasions at appointments at his office at MSU Defendant Nassar sexually
assaulted Plaintiff Jane IMSU Doe by engaging in digital vaginal and anal penetration.
137. Plaintiffs parents would attend these appointments with her on occasion, but Defendant
Nassar would position himself in such a way as to prevent observation of his conduct.
138. During these treatments, Plaintiff perceived Defendant Nassar to be aroused and making
grunting noises.
139. On at least one occasion, Plaintiff specifically declined the intervaginal treatment, but
Defendant Nassar held her down and performed the procedure against Plaintiffs will.
140. As a result of MSU gymnastics head coach Kathie Klages being informed by a fellow
athlete of Defendant Nassars conduct, Jane IMSU Doe was asked by Klages if Nassar had
performed the procedure involving digital vaginal and anal penetration on her (Jane
IMSU Doe), and Jane IMSU Doe responded in the affirmative. Klages told Jane IMSU
Doe that there is no reason to bring up Nassars conduct.
141. Plaintiff Jane IMSU Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Dr. Nassar for OB/GYN issues.
142. Shortly after beginning her treatments with Defendant Nassar, Plaintiff IMSU Doe
developed an eating disorder and depression, resulting in the termination of her gymnastics
career.
143. Based on Defendant Nassars representations, Plaintiff Jane IMSU Doe believed the
D. JANE JMSU DOE
paragraphs.
26
145. Plaintiff Jane JMSU Doe began treating with Dr. Nassar in 1997 or 1998 at his office at
MSU. She was seen two times.
146. Plaintiff JMSU Doe was in her 30s at the time of her encounters with Defendant Nassar.
147. Plaintiff Jane JMSU Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of knee pain.
148. At both appointments with Defendant Nassar, Nassar massaged/manually examined
Plaintiffs upper thigh and digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane JMSU Does vagina with his
finger or knuckle without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.
149. Plaintiff Jane JMSU Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Dr. Nassar for OB/GYN issues.
150. Based on Defendant Nassars representations, Plaintiff Jane JMSU Doe believed the
VI. CLAIMS AGAINST MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEFENDANTS
A. COUNT ONE
VIOLATIONS OF TITLE IX
20 U.S.C. 1681(a), et seq.
DEFENDANTS MSU, MSU TRUSTEES
paragraphs.
152. Title IXs statutory language states, No person in the United States shall on the basis of
sex, be subject to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance
153. Plaintiffs are persons under the Title IX statutory language.
154. Defendant MSU receives federal financial assistance for its education program and is
therefore subject to the provisions of Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C.
1681(a), et seq.
27
155. Defendant MSU is required under Title IX to investigate allegations of sexual assault,
sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.
156. The U.S. Department of Educations Office of Civil Rights has explained that Title IX
covers all programs of a school, and extends to sexual harassment and assault by
employees, students and third parties.
157. Defendant Nassars actions and conduct were carried out under one or more of Defendant
MSU programs, which provides medical treatment to students, athletes, and the public.
158. Defendant Nassars conduct and actions toward Plaintiffs, that being nonconsensual digital
vaginal and anal penetration, touching of Plaintiffs vaginal area, and touching of Plaintiffs
breasts constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX.
159. By at least 1999 and/or 2000, and as early as 1997 or 1998, an appropriate person at
Defendant MSU had actual knowledge of the sexual assault, abuse, and molestation
committed by Defendant Nassar.
160. The MSU Defendants failed to carry out their duties to investigate and take corrective
action under Title IX following complaints of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation in or
around 1999 and/or 2000.
161. The MSU Defendants were notified again in 2014 of Defendant Nassars conduct when a
victim reported she had an appointment with Defendant Nassar to address hip pain and was
sexually abused and molested by Defendant Nassar when he cupped her buttocks,
massaged her breast and vaginal area, and he became sexually aroused.
162. The victim reported to Defendant MSU facts which were omitted or withheld from the
investigative report including but not limited to the following:
28
163. Three months after initiating an investigation, in July 2014, the victims complaints were
Nassars conduct medically appropriate and Not of a sexual nature.
164. Following the investigation, upon information and belief, Defendant Nassar became
subject to new institutional guidelines, one of which it is believed was that Defendant
Nassar was not to examine or treat patients alone.
165. The MSU Defendants failed to adequately supervise or otherwise ensure Defendant Nassar
complied with the newly imposed institutional guidelines even though the MSU
Defendants had actual knowledge Nassar posed a substantial risk of additional sexual abuse
of females whom he had unfettered access.
166. After the 2014 complaints Defendant Nassar continued to sexually assault, abuse, and
molest individuals.
167. The MSU Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to known acts of sexual assault,
abuse, and molestation on its premises by:
a. failing to investigate and address allegations as required by Title IX;
b. failing to adequately investigate and address the 2014 complaint regarding
Defendant Nassars conduct; and,
c. failing to institute corrective measures to prevent Defendant Nassar from
violating and sexually abusing other students and individuals, including
minors.
29
168. The MSU Defendants acted with deliberate indifference as its lack of response to the
allegations of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation was clearly unreasonable in light of
the known circumstances, Defendant Nassars actions with female athletes, and his access
to young girls and young women.
169. The MSU Defendants deliberate indifference was confirmed by the Department of
Educations investigation into Defendant MSUs handling of sexual assault and
relationship violence allegations which revealed:
a. A sexually hostile environment existed and affected numerous students and staff
on Defendant MSUs campus;
b. That the Universitys failure to address complaints of sexual harassment,
including sexual violence in a prompt and equitable manner caused and may
have contributed to a continuation of the sexually hostile environment.
170. The MSU Defendants responses were clearly unreasonable as Defendant Nassar continued
to sexually assault female athletes and other individuals until he was discharged from the
University in 2016.
171. Between the dates of approximately 1996 and 2016, the MSU Defendants acted in a
deliberate, grossly negligent, and/or reckless manner when they failed to reasonably
respond to Defendant Nassars sexual assaults and sex-based harassment of Plaintiffs on
and off school premises.
172. The MSU Defendants failed warn or advise current and former patients of Defendant
Nassar, including Plaintiffs, that allegations could surface that in fact the treatments that
the patients received was not medical treatment at all but was potentially sexual assault.
30
173. The MSU Defendants failed to offer counseling services to current of former patients of
Defendant Nassar, including Plaintiffs.
174. The MSU Defendants failure to promptly and appropriately investigate and remedy and
respond to the sexual assaults after they received notice subjected Plaintiffs to further
harassment and a sexually hostile environment, effectively denying them all access to
educational opportunities at MSU, including medical care.
175. As a direct and/or proximate result of the MSU Defendants actions and/or inactions,
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional
distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem,
disgrace, fright, grief, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, were prevented and will
continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiffs daily activities and obtaining the full
enjoyment of life, and have sustained and continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning
capacity.
B. COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

42 U.S.C. 1983
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST THE MSU DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANT NASSAR
paragraphs.
177. Plaintiffs, as females, are members of a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
178. Plaintiffs enjoy the constitutionally protected Due Process right to be free from the invasion
of bodily integrity through sexual assault, abuse, or molestation.
31
179. At all relevant times, Defendants MSU, MSU Trustees, and Nassar were acting under color
of law, to wit, under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages
of the State of Michigan and/or Defendant Michigan State University.
180. The acts as alleged above amount to a violation of these clearly established constitutionally
protected rights, of which reasonable persons in the MSU Defendants positions should
have known.
181. The MSU Defendants have the ultimate responsibility and authority to train and supervise
its employees, agents, and/or representatives, in the appropriate manner of detecting,
reporting, and preventing sexual abuse, assault, and molestation and as a matter of acts,
custom, policy, and/or practice, failed to do so with deliberate indifference.
182. As a matter of custom, policy, and and/or practice, the MSU Defendants had and have the
ultimate responsibility and authority to investigate complaints against their employees,
agents, and representatives from all individuals including, but not limited to students,
visitors, faculty, staff, or other employees, agents, and/or representatives, and failed to do
so with deliberate indifference.
183. The MSU Defendants had a duty to prevent sexual assault, abuse, and molestation on their
campus and premises, that duty arising under the above-referenced constitutional rights, as
well as established rights pursuant to Title IX.
184. Defendant MSUs internal policies provide that [a]ll University employees ... are expected
to promptly report sexual misconduct or relationship violence that they observe or learn
about and that involves a member of the University community (faculty, staff or student)
or occurred at a University event or on University property." They state further: "[t]he
32
employee must report all relevant details about the alleged relationship violence or sexual
misconduct that occurred on campus or at a campus-sponsored event. .. "
185. Defendant MSUs aforementioned internal policies were violated in or around 1999 when
an individual reported sexual assault, abuse, and molestation by Defendant Nassar to MSU
representatives including trainers and a coach and no action was taken to address her
complaints.
186. Defendant MSUs aforementioned internal policies were violated in 2000 when another
individual reported sexual assault, abuse, and molestation by Defendant Nassar to MSU
representatives including trainers and no action was taken to address her complaints.
187. The MSU Defendants failure to address the above-described complaints led to an
unknown number of individuals being victimized, sexually assaulted, abused, and molested
by Defendant Nassar.
188. Additionally, the MSU Defendants failure to properly address the 2014 complaint
regarding Defendant Nassars conduct also led to others being victimized, sexually
assaulted, abused and molested by Defendant Nassar.
189. Ultimately, Defendants failed to adequately and properly investigate the complaints of
Plaintiffs or other similarly-situated individuals including but not limited to failing to:
a. perform a thorough investigation into improper conduct by Defendant Nassar
with Plaintiffs after receiving complaints in 1999 and 2000;
b. thoroughly review and investigate all policies, practices, procedures and training
materials related to the circumstances surrounding the conduct of Defendant
Nassar;
33
c. recognize sexual assault when reported in 2014 and permitting University
officials to deem sexual assault as medically appropriate and not of a
sexual nature; and,
d. ensure all institutional guidelines issued following the 2014 investigation into
Defendant Nassars conduct were satisfied.
190. As indicated in the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights report, the MSU
Defendants had a culture that permitted a sexually hostile environment to exist affecting
numerous individuals on Defendant MSUs campus, including Plaintiffs.
191. Also indicated in the report was Defendant MSUs custom, practice, and/or policy of
failing to address complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual violence in a prompt
and equitable manner which caused and may have contributed to a continuation of the
sexually hostile environment.
192. By failing to prevent the aforementioned sexual assault, abuse, and molestation upon
Plaintiffs, and by failing to appropriately respond to reports of Defendant Nassars sexual
assault, abuse, and molestation in a manner that was so clearly unreasonable it amounted
to deliberate indifference, the MSU Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983.
193. The MSU Defendants are also liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for maintaining
customs, policies, practices which deprived Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
194. The MSU Defendants tolerated, authorized and/or permitted a custom, policy, practice or
procedure of insufficient supervision and failed to adequately screen, counsel, or discipline
34
Defendant Nassar, with the result that Defendant Nassar was allowed to violate the rights
of persons such as Plaintiffs with impunity.
197. As a direct and/or proximate result of the MSU Defendants actions and/or inactions,
Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress,
physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem,
capacity.
C. COUNT THREE
FAILURE TO TRAIN AND SUPERVISE

42 U.S.C. 1983
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST THE MSU DEFENDANTS
paragraphs.
199. The MSU Defendants have the ultimate responsibility and authority to train and supervise
its employees, agents, and/or representatives including Defendant Nassar and all faculty
and staff regarding their duties toward students, faculty, staff, and visitors.
35
200. The MSU Defendants failed to train and supervise its employees, agents, and/or
representatives including all faculty and staff, regarding the following duties:
a. Perceive, report, and stop inappropriate sexual conduct on campus;
b. Provide diligent supervision over student-athletes and other individuals;
c. Report suspected incidents of sexual abuse or sexual assault;
d. Ensure the safety of all students, faculty, staff, and visitors to Defendant MSUs
campuses premises;
e. Provide a safe environment for all students, faculty, staff, and visitors to
Defendant MSUs premises free from sexual harassment; and,
f. Properly train faculty and staff to be aware of their individual responsibility for
creating and maintaining a safe environment.
201. The above list of duties is not exhaustive.
202. The MSU Defendants failed to adequately train coaches, trainers, medical staff, and others
regarding the aforementioned duties which led to violations of Plaintiffs rights.
203. As a result, the MSU Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
206. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants actions and/or inactions, Plaintiffs
suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical
36
manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, fright,
grief, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, were prevented and will continue to be
prevented from performing Plaintiffs daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of
life, and have sustained and continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity.
D. COUNT FOUR
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
AND DEFENDANT NASSAR
paragraphs.
208. The MSU Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care to ensure their safety and
freedom from sexual assault, abuse, and molestation while interacting with their
employees, representatives, and/or agents, including Defendant Nassar.
209. Defendant Nassar owed Plaintiffs a duty of due care in carrying out medical treatment as
an employee, agent, and/or representative of the MSU Defendants.
210. By seeking medical treatment from Defendant Nassar in the course of his employment,
agency, and/or representation of the MSU Defendants, a special, confidential, and fiduciary
relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant Nassar was created, resulting in Defendant
Nassar owing Plaintiffs a duty to use due care.
211. The MSU Defendants failure to adequately supervise Defendant Nassar, especially after
MSU knew or should have known of complaints regarding his nonconsensual sexual
touching and assaults during treatments was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial
lack of concern for whether an injury would result to Plaintiffs.
37
212. Defendant Nassars conduct in sexually assaulting, abusing, and molesting Plaintiffs in the
course of his employment, agency, and/or representation of the MSU Defendants and under
the guise of rendering medical treatment was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial
lack of concern for whether an injury would result to Plaintiffs.
213. The MSU Defendants conduct demonstrated a willful disregard for precautions to ensure
Plaintiffs safety.
214. The MSU Defendants conduct as described above, demonstrated a willful disregard for
substantial risks to Plaintiffs.
215. The MSU Defendants breached duties owed to Plaintiffs and were grossly negligent when
they conducted themselves by the actions described above, said acts having been
committed with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs health, safety, Constitutional and/or
statutory rights, and with a substantial lack of concern as to whether an injury would result.
218. As the direct and/or proximate result of Defendants actions and/or inactions, Plaintiffs
38
E. COUNT FIVE
NEGLIGENCE
AND DEFENDANT NASSAR
paragraphs.
220. The MSU Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of ordinary care to ensure their safety and
freedom from sexual assault, abuse, and molestation while interacting with their
employees, representatives and/or agents.
221. By seeking medical treatment from Defendant Nassar in his capacity as an employee,
agent, and/or representative of the MSU Defendants, a special, confidential, and fiduciary
Nassar owing Plaintiffs a duty to use ordinary care.
222. Defendant Nassar owed Plaintiffs a duty of ordinary care.
223. The MSU Defendants failure to adequately train and supervise Defendant Nassar breached
the duty of ordinary care.
224. The MSU Defendants had notice through its own employees, agents, and/or representatives
as early as 1997 or 1998, again in 1999, again in 2000, and again in 2014 of complaints of
a sexual nature related to Defendant Nassars purported treatments with young girls and
women.
225. The MSU Defendants should have known of the foreseeability of sexual abuse with respect
to youth and collegiate sports.
226. The MSU Defendants failure to properly investigate, address, and remedy complaints
regarding Defendant Nassars conduct was a breach of ordinary care.
39
course of his employment, agency, and/or representation of the MSU Defendants was a
breach of the duty to use ordinary care.
230. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants conduct, actions and/or inactions,
capacity.
F. COUNT SIX
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
paragraphs.
232. Vicarious liability is indirect responsibility imposed by operation of law where an
employer is bound to keep its employees within their proper bounds and is responsible if
it fails to do so.
40
233. Vicarious liability essentially creates agency between the principal and its agent, so that
the principal is held to have done what the agent has done.
234. The MSU Defendants employed and/or held Defendant Nassar out to be its agent and/or
representative from approximately 1996 to 2016.
235. Defendant MSUs website contains hundreds of pages portraying Defendant Nassar as a
distinguished member of Defendant MSUs College of Osteopathic Medicine, Division of
Sports Medicine.
236. The MSU Defendants are vicariously liable for the actions of Defendant Nassar as
described above that were performed during the course of his employment, representation,
and/or agency with the MSU Defendants and while he had unfettered access to young
female athletes on MSUs campus and premises through its College of Osteopathic
Medicine and Division of Sports Medicine.
237. As a or the direct and/or proximate result of Defendant Nassars actions carried out in the
course of his employment, agency, and/or representation of the MSU Defendants, Plaintiffs
G. COUNT SEVEN
EXPRESS/IMPLIED AGENCY
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST MSU DEFENDANTS
paragraphs.
41
239. An agent is a person who is authorized by another to act on its behalf.
240. The MSU Defendants intentionally or negligently made representations that Defendant
Nassar was their employee, agent, and/or representative.
241. On the basis of those representations, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that Defendant Nassar
was acting as an employee, agent, and/or representative of the MSU Defendants.
242. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of Defendant Nassars sexual assault, abuse, and
molestation as described above, acts that were performed during the course of his
employment, agency, and/or representation with the MSU Defendants and while he had
unfettered access to young female athletes.
243. Plaintiffs were injured because they relied on the MSU Defendants to provide employees,
agents, and or representatives who would exercise reasonable skill and care.
244. As a or the direct and/or proximate cause of Defendant Nassars negligence carried out in
the course of his employment, agency, and/or representative of the MSU Defendants,
capacity.
H. COUNT EIGHT
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
paragraphs.
42
246. The MSU Defendants had a duty to provide reasonable supervision of their employee,
agent, and/or representative, Defendant Nassar, while he was in the course of his
employment, agency or representation with the MSU Defendants and while he interacted
with young female athletes including Plaintiffs.
247. It was reasonably foreseeable given the known sexual abuse in youth sports and gymnastics
in particular that Defendant Nassar who had prior allegations against him had or would
sexually abuse children, including Plaintiffs, unless properly supervised.
248. The MSU Defendants by and through their employees, agents, managers and/or assigns,
such as President Simon, President McPherson, Dean Strampel or Dr. Kovan knew or
reasonably should have known of Defendant Nassars conduct and/or that Defendant
Nassar was an unfit employee, agent, and/or representative because of his sexual interest
in children.
249. The MSU Defendants breached their duty to provide reasonable supervision of Defendant
Nassar, and permitted Defendant Nassar, who was in a position of trust and authority, to
commit the acts against Plaintiffs.
250. The aforementioned sexual abuse occurred while Plaintiffs and Defendant Nassar were on
the premises of Defendant MSU, and while Defendant Nassar was acting in the course of
his employment, agency, and/or representation of the MSU Defendants.
251. The MSU Defendants tolerated, authorized and/or permitted a custom, policy, practice or
such individuals, with the result that Defendant Nassar was allowed to violate the rights of
persons such as Plaintiffs with impunity.
43
254. As a or the direct and/or proximate result of the MSU Defendants negligent supervision,
capacity.
I. COUNT NINE
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN OR PROTECT

paragraphs.
256. The MSU Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant Nassar posed a risk of
harm to Plaintiffs or those in Plaintiffs situation.
257. As early as 1997, the MSU Defendants had direct and/or constructive knowledge as to the
dangerous conduct of Defendant Nassar and failed to act reasonably and responsibly in
response.
258. The MSU Defendants knew or should have known Defendant Nassar committed sexual
assault, abuse, and molestation and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct.
44
259. The MSU Defendants had a duty to warn or protect Plaintiffs and others in Plaintiffs
situation against the risk of injury by Defendant Nassar.
260. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, confidential, and
fiduciary relationship between Defendant Nassar as an employee, agent, and or
representative of the MSU Defendants and Plaintiffs.
261. The MSU Defendants breached said duty by failing to warn Plaintiffs and/or by failing to
take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs from Defendant Nassar.
262. The MSU Defendants breached its duties to protect Plaintiffs by failing to:
a. respond to allegations of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation;
b. detect and/or uncover evidence of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation; and,
c. investigate, adjudicate, and terminate Defendant Nassars employment with
Defendant MSU prior to 2016.
263. The MSU Defendants failed to adequately screen, counsel and/or discipline Defendant
Nassar for physical and/or mental conditions that might have rendered him unfit to
discharge the duties and responsibilities of a physician at an educational institution,
resulting in violations of Plaintiffs rights.
264. The MSU Defendants willfully refused to notify, give adequate warning, and implement
appropriate safeguards to protect Plaintiffs from Defendant Nassars conduct.
266. As a or the direct and/or proximate result of the MSU Defendants negligent failure to warn
or protect, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock,
45
emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of
self-esteem, disgrace, fright, grief, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, were
prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiffs daily activities and
obtaining the full enjoyment of life, and have sustained and continue to sustain loss of
earnings and earning capacity.
J. COUNT TEN
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN OR EDUCATE

paragraphs.
268. The MSU Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect
Plaintiffs and other minors from the risk of childhood sexual abuse and/or sexual assault
by Defendant Nassar, such as the failure to properly train or educate Plaintiffs and other
individuals (including minors) about how to avoid such a risk.
269. The MSU Defendants failed to implement reasonable safeguards to:
a. Prevent acts of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation by Defendant Nassar;
b. Avoid placing Defendant Nassar in positions where he would be in unsupervised
contact and interaction with Plaintiffs and other young athletes.
270. As a or the direct and/or proximate result of the MSU Defendants negligent failure to train
or educate, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock,
46
K. COUNT ELEVEN
NEGLIGENT RETENTION
paragraphs.
272. The MSU Defendants had a duty when credentialing, hiring, retaining, screening,
checking, regulating, monitoring, and supervising employees, agents and/or
representatives to exercise due care, but they failed to do so.
273. The MSU Defendants were negligent in the retention of Defendant Nassar as an employee,
agent, and/or representative in their failure to adequately investigate, report and address
complaints about his conduct of which they knew or should have known.
274. The MSU Defendants were negligent in the retention of Defendant Nassar as an employee,
agent, and/or representative when after they discovered, or reasonably should have
discovered Defendant Nassars conduct which reflected a propensity for sexual
misconduct.
275. The MSU Defendants failure to act in accordance with the standard of care resulted in
Defendant Nassar gaining access to and sexually abusing and/or sexually assaulting
Plaintiffs and an unknown number of other individuals.
276. The aforementioned negligence in the credentialing, hiring, retaining, screening, checking,
regulating, monitoring, and supervising of Defendant Nassar created a foreseeable risk of
harm to Plaintiffs as well as other minors and young adults.
47
277. As a or the direct and/or proximate result of the MSU Defendants negligent retention,
disgrace, fright, grief, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; were prevented and will
enjoyment of life; have sustained and continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning
capacity.
L. COUNT TWELVE
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

paragraphs.
279. The MSU Defendants allowed Defendant Nassar to be in a position where he could
sexually assault, abuse, and molest children and young adults.
280. A reasonable person would not expect the MSU Defendants to tolerate or permit their
employee or agent to carry out sexual assault, abuse, or molestation after they knew or
should have known of complaints and claims of sexual assault and abuse occurring during
Defendant Nassars treatments.
281. The MSU Defendants held Defendant Nassar in high esteem and acclaim which in turn
encouraged Plaintiffs and others to respect and trust Defendant Nassar and seek out his
services and to not question his methods or motives.
282. The MSU Defendants protected Defendant Nassar in part to bolster and sustain his national
and international reputation in the gymnastics community.
48
283. A reasonable person would not expect the MSU Defendants to be incapable of supervising
Defendant Nassar and/or preventing Defendant Nassar from committing acts of sexual
assault, abuse, and molestation.
285. The MSU Defendants conduct as described above was intentional and/or reckless.
286. As a or the direct and/or proximate result of the MSU Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs
suffered continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical
M. COUNT THIRTEEN
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST MSU DEFENDANTS
paragraphs.
288. From approximately 1996 to September 2016, the MSU Defendants represented to
Plaintiffs and the public that Defendant Nassar was a competent and safe physician.
289. By representing that Defendant Nassar was a team physician and athletic physician at
Defendant MSU and a National Team Physician with Defendant USAG, the MSU
Defendants represented to Plaintiffs and the public that Defendant Nassar was safe,
49
trustworthy, of high moral and ethical repute, and that Plaintiffs and the public need not
worry about being harmed by Defendant Nassar.
290. The representations were false when they were made as Defendant Nassar had and was
continuing to sexually assault, abuse, and molest Plaintiffs and an unknown number of
other individuals.
291. As of 1999 and 2000, the MSU Defendants knew their representations of Defendant Nassar
were false at least two individuals had complained of Defendant Nassars conduct to MSU
representatives.
292. Although MSU was informed of Defendant Nassars conduct they failed to investigate,
remedy, or in any way address the complaints.
293. The MSU Defendants continued to hold Defendant Nassar out as a competent and safe
physician.
294. Additional complaints against Defendant Nassar surfaced in 2014, however, because of
Defendant MSUs culture which included existence of a sexually hostile environment on
Defendant MSUs campus and premises and the Universitys failure to address complaints
of sexual harassment, including sexual violence in a prompt and equitable manner which
in turn caused and may have contributed to a continuation of the sexually hostile
environment, Defendant Nassar was permitted to continue employment and sexually abuse,
assault, and molest Plaintiffs and an unknown number of other individuals.
295. Between the time of the 2014 complaint and September 2016, the MSU Defendants
continued to hold Defendant Nassar out as a competent and safe physician.
296. Plaintiffs relied on the assertions of the MSU Defendants and several Plaintiffs continued
to seek treatment from Defendant Nassar in the wake of known concerns and dangers.
50
297. Plaintiffs were subjected to sexual assault, abuse, and molestation as a result of the MSU
Defendants fraudulent misrepresentations regarding Defendant Nassar.
298. As a direct and/or proximate result of the MSU Defendants fraudulent misrepresentations,
disgrace, fright, grief, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; were prevented and will
enjoyment of life; have sustained and continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning
capacity.
VII. CLAIMS AGAINST USA GYMNASTICS
A. COUNT FOURTEEN
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
ALL PLAINTIFFS
AGAINST DEFENDANT USAG AND DEFENDANT NASSAR
paragraphs.
300. Defendant USAG owed the public and the Plaintiffs a duty to use due care to ensure their
safety and freedom from sexual assault, abuse, and molestation while interacting with their
employees, representatives, and/or agents.
301. The Plaintiffs are or were members of USAG, participated in USAG sanctioned events,
and/or were knowledgeable of USAG and considered it to be a prestigious organization.
In some cases Plaintiffs were referred to Defendant Nassar through USAG affiliations.
302. Defendant Nassar owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care in his capacity as an employee,
representative, and/or agent of Defendant USAG.
51
agent, and/or representative of Defendant USAG, a special, confidential, and fiduciary
relationship between Plaintiffs Defendant Nassar was created, resulting in Defendant
304. Defendant USAGs failure to adequately supervise Defendant Nassar was so reckless as to
demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result to Plaintiffs.
305. Defendant Nassars conduct in sexually assaulting, abusing, and molesting Plaintiffs under
the guise of rendering medical treatment as an employee, representative, and/or agent of
Defendant USAG was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for
whether an injury would result to Plaintiffs.
306. Defendant USAGs conduct demonstrated a willful disregard for necessary precautions to
reasonably protect Plaintiffs safety.
307. Defendant USAGs conduct as described above, demonstrated a willful disregard for
308. Defendant USAG breached duties owed to Plaintiffs and were grossly negligent when they
conducted themselves by actions described above, including but not limited to their failure
to notify MSU about the reasons for Nassars separation from USAG and more broadly the
issues surrounding sexual abuse in gymnastics and warning signs and reporting
requirements. Said acts were committed with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs health,
safety, Constitutional and/or statutory rights, and with a substantial lack of concern as to
whether an injury would result.
309. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant USAGS actions and/or inactions,
Plaintiffs suffered continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress,
52
capacity.
B. COUNT FIFTEEN
NEGLIGENCE
ALL PLAINTIFFS
AGAINST DEFENDANT USAG AND DEFENDANT NASSAR
paragraphs.
311. Defendant USAG owed the public and Plaintiffs a duty of ordinary care to ensure their
safety and freedom from sexual assault, abuse, and molestation while being treated by their
employees, representatives, and agents.
312. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that the USAG was recommending, employing, and
holding out competent and ethical physicians and trainers for medical treatment who would
carry out said treatment without sexual assault, abuse, and molestation.
agent, and/or representative of Defendant USAG, a special, confidential, and fiduciary
314. Defendant Nassar owed Plaintiffs duty of ordinary care in carrying out medical treatment.
315. Defendant USAGs failure to adequately train and supervise Defendant Nassar breached
the duty of ordinary care.
53
316. Defendant USAGs failure to properly investigate, address, and remedy complaints
regarding Defendant Nassars conduct was a breach of ordinary care.
317. Defendant USAGs failure to inform Plaintiffs and the public of the allegations and
concerns leading to Defendant Nassars separation from USAG was a breach of ordinary
care.
318. Defendant Nassars conduct in sexually assaulting, abusing, and molesting Plaintiffs was
a breach of the duty to use ordinary care.
319. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants conduct, actions and/or inactions,
capacity.
C. COUNT SIXTEEN
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT USAG
paragraphs.
321. Vicarious liability is indirect responsibility imposed by operation of law where an
employer is bound to keep its employees within their proper bounds and is responsible if
it fails to do so.
322. Vicarious liability essentially creates agency between the principal and its agent, so that
the principal is held to have done what the agent has done.
54
323. Defendant USAGs website contains sites portraying Defendant Nassar as the recipient of
distinguished awards and boasts him as having been instrumental to the success of USA
gymnastics.
324. Defendant USAG employed and/or held Defendant Nassar out to be its agent and/or
representative from approximately 1986 to 2015.
325. Defendant USAG is vicariously liable for the actions of Defendant Nassar as described
above that were performed during the course of his employment, representation, or agency
with Defendant USAG and while he had unfettered access to young female athletes.
326. As a direct and/or proximate cause of Defendant Nassars negligence carried out in the
course of his employment, agency, and/or representation with Defendant USAG Plaintiffs
D. COUNT SEVENTEEN
paragraphs.
329. Defendant USAG intentionally or negligently made representations that Defendant Nassar
was their employee, agent, and/or representative.
55
330. On the basis of those representations, Plaintiffs reasonably believed Defendant Nassar was
acting as an employee, agent, and/or representation of Defendant USAG.
molestation as described above carried out through his employment, agency, and/or
representation with Defendant USAG.
332. Plaintiffs were injured because they relied on Defendant USAG to provide employees or
agents who would exercise reasonable skill and care.
333. As a direct and/or proximate cause of Defendant Nassars negligence carried out in the
course of his employment, agency, and/or representation with Defendant USAG Plaintiffs
E. COUNT EIGHTEEN
paragraphs.
335. Defendant USAG had a duty to provide reasonable supervision of its employee, agent,
and/or representative, Defendant Nassar, while he was in the course of his employment,
agency and/or representation of Defendant USAG and while he interacted with young
female athletes including Plaintiffs.
56
sexually abuse children, including Plaintiffs, unless properly supervised.
337. Defendant USAG by and through their employees, agents, managers and/or assigns such
as Mr. Penny or Mr. Colarossi, knew or reasonably should have known of Defendant
Nassars conduct and/or that Defendant Nassar was an unfit employee, agent, and/or
representative because of his sexual interest in children and young adults.
338. Defendant USAG breached its duty to provide reasonable supervision of Defendant Nassar,
and its failure permitted Defendant Nassar, who was in a position of trust and authority, to
339. The aforementioned sexual abuse occurred while Defendant Nassar was acting in the
course of his employment, agency and/or representation of Defendant USAG.
340. Defendant USAG tolerated, authorized and/or permitted a custom, policy, practice or
procedure of insufficient supervision and failed to adequately screen, counsel or discipline
Defendant Nassar, with the result that Defendant Nassar was allowed to violate the rights
of persons such as Plaintiffs with impunity.
341. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant USAGs negligent supervision, Plaintiffs
F. COUNT NINETEEN
57

paragraphs.
343. Given the direct or indirect knowledge of sexual abuse in youth sports and in particular
gymnastics, it was reasonably foreseeable that sexual abuse of minors may occur if proper
procedures were not taken by Defendant USAG.
344. Defendant USAG knew or should have known that Defendant Nassar posed a risk of harm
to Plaintiffs or those in Plaintiffs situation.
345. Defendant USAG had direct and/or constructive knowledge as to the dangerous conduct of
Defendant Nassar and failed to act reasonably and responsibly in response.
346. Defendant USAG knew or should have known that Defendant Nassar previously
committed sexual assault, abuse, and molestation and/or was continuing to engage in such
conduct.
347. Defendant USAG had a duty to warn or protect the public, Plaintiffs, and others in
Plaintiffs situation against the risk of injury by Defendant Nassar.
fiduciary relationship between Defendant Nassar in his capacity as employee, agent, and/or
representative of Defendant USAG and Plaintiffs.
349. Defendant USAG breached said duty by failing to warn the public and the Plaintiffs and/or
by failing to take reasonable steps to protect the public and the Plaintiffs from Defendant
Nassar.
350. Defendant USAG breached its duties to protect Plaintiffs by failing to detect and/or
uncover evidence of sexual abuse and sexual assault, investigate Defendant Nassar,
58
adjudicate and suspend and/or ban Defendant Nassar from USAG affiliation and USAG
sanctioned events.
351. Defendant USAG failed to adequately screen, counsel and/or discipline Defendant Nassar
for physical and/or mental conditions that might have rendered him unfit to discharge the
duties and responsibilities of a physician in his capacity as an employee, agent, and/or
representative of Defendant USAG, resulting in violations of Plaintiffs rights.
352. Defendant USAG willfully refused to notify, give adequate warning, and implement
353. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant USAGs negligent failure to warn or
protect, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional
capacity.
G. COUNT TWENTY
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN OR EDUCATE

paragraphs.
355. Defendant USAG breached its duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect the
public and Plaintiffs from the risk of sexual abuse and/or sexual assault by Defendant
Nassar, such as the failure to properly train or educate Plaintiffs and other individuals
(including minors) about how to avoid such a risk.
59
356. Defendant USAG failed to implement reasonable safeguards to:
a. Prevent acts of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation by Defendant Nassar;
b. Avoid placing Defendant Nassar in positions where he would be in unsupervised
contact and interaction with Plaintiffs and other young athletes.
357. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant USAGs negligent failure to train or
educate, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional
capacity.
H. COUNT TWENTY-ONE
NEGLIGENT RETENTION
paragraphs.
359. Defendant USAG had a duty when credentialing, hiring, retaining, screening, checking,
regulating, monitoring, and supervising employees, agents and/or representatives to
exercise due care, but they failed to do so.
360. Defendant USAG was negligent in the retention of Defendant Nassar as an employee,
agent, and/or representative in their failure to adequately investigate, report, and address
complaints about his conduct of which they knew or should have known.
60
361. Defendant USAG was negligent in the retention of Defendant Nassar when after they
discovered, or reasonably should have discovered Defendant Nassars conduct which
reflected a propensity for sexual misconduct.
362. Defendant USAGs failure to act in accordance with the standard of care resulted in
Defendant Nassar gaining access to and sexually abusing and/or sexually assaulting
Plaintiffs as well as an unknown number of other individuals.
363. The aforementioned negligence in the credentialing, hiring, retaining, screening, checking,
regulating, monitoring, and supervising of Defendant Nassar created a foreseeable risk of
harm to Plaintiffs as well as other minors and young adults.
364. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant USAGs negligent retention, Plaintiffs
I. COUNT TWENTY-TWO

paragraphs.
366. Defendant USAG allowed Defendant Nassar to be in a position where he could sexually
assault, abuse, and molest children and young adults.
367. A reasonable person would not expect Defendant USAG to tolerate or permit their
employee, agent, or representative to carry out sexual assault, abuse, or molestation.
61
368. Defendants USAG held Defendant Nassar in high esteem and acclaim which in turn
encouraged Plaintiffs and others to respect and trust Defendant Nassar and seek out his
services and to not question his methods or motives.
369. Defendants USAG protected Defendant Nassar in part to bolster his national and
international reputation in the gymnastics community.
370. A reasonable person would not expect Defendant USAG to be incapable of supervising
assault, abuse and molestation.
371. Defendant USAGs conduct as described above was intentional and/or reckless.
372. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant USAGs intentional infliction of
emotional distress, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock,
J. COUNT TWENTY-THREE

paragraphs.
374. From approximately 1996 to summer 2015, Defendant USAG represented to Plaintiffs and
the public that Defendant Nassar was a competent, ethical, and safe physician.
62
Defendant MSU and a National Team Physician with Defendant USAG, Defendant USAG
represented to Plaintiffs and the public that Defendant Nassar was safe, trustworthy, of
high moral and ethical repute, and that Plaintiffs and the public need not worry about being
harmed by Defendant Nassar.
other individuals.
377. Additionally, complaints were made to Defendant USAG, yet Defendant USAG did not
contact Plaintiffs, the MSU Defendants, or any other clubs, or organizations affiliated with
Defendant Nassar to inform them of the allegations and potential harm to Plaintiffs and
others.
378. Plaintiffs relied on the assertions of Defendant USAG and several Plaintiffs continued to
seek treatment of Defendant Nassar in the wake of known concerns and dangers.
379. Plaintiffs were subjected to sexual assault, abuse, and molestation as a result of Defendant
USAGs fraudulent misrepresentations regarding Defendant Nassar.
380. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant USAGs fraud and misrepresentation,
capacity.
63
VIII. CLAIMS AGAINST TWISTARS
A. COUNT TWENTY-FOUR
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT TWISTARS AND DEFENDANT NASSAR
paragraphs.
382. Defendant Twistars owed the public and the Plaintiffs a duty to use due care to ensure their
safety and freedom from sexual assault, abuse, and molestation while interacting with their
employees, representatives, and/or agents.
383. Defendant Nassar owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care as an employee, representative,
and/or agent of Defendant Twistars.
agent, and/or representative of Defendant Twistars, a special, confidential, and fiduciary
relationship between Plaintiffs Defendant Nassar was created, resulting in Defendant
385. Given known sexual abuse which has taken place in youth sports including gymnastics and
the reasonable foreseeability that harm may occur to athletes, Defendant Twistars not only
referred athletes to Defendant Nassar but also failed to adequately supervise Defendant
Nassar. Defendant Twistars action were so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of
concern for whether an injury would result to Plaintiffs.
course of his employment, agency, and/or representation of Defendant Twistars and under
the guise of rendering medical treatment as an employee, representative, and/or agent of
64
Defendant Twistars was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for
whether an injury would result to Plaintiffs.
387. Defendant Twistars conduct demonstrated a willful disregard for precautions to ensure
Plaintiffs safety.
388. Defendant Twistars conduct as described above, demonstrated a willful disregard for
389. Defendant Twistars breached duties owed to Plaintiffs and were grossly negligent when
they conducted themselves by actions described above, said acts having been committed
with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs health, safety, Constitutional and/or statutory rights,
and with a substantial lack of concern as to whether an injury would result.
390. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants gross negligence, Plaintiffs suffered and
continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical
B. COUNT TWENTY-FIVE
NEGLIGENCE
ALL PLAINTIFFS
AGAINST DEFENDANT TWISTARS AND DEFENDANT NASSAR
paragraphs.
65
392. In or around 1998, a parent of a gymnast at Defendant Twistars facility complained to Mr.
Geddert, the owner and operator of Defendant Twistars, regarding Dr. Nassars conduct
alleging sexual abuse, assault, and molestation.
393. Despite being informed of Defendant Nassars conduct, Mr. Geddert recommended
Defendant Nassar as a physician to members and guests of Defendant Twistars.
394. Mr. Geddert owed Plaintiffs a duty of ordinary care to ensure their safety and freedom from
sexual assault, abuse, and molestation.
395. In recommending Defendant Nassar with knowledge of Defendant Nassars conduct, Mr.
Geddert breached the duty of ordinary care to Plaintiffs and the public.
396. Defendant Twistars breached the duty of ordinary care to Plaintiffs and the public in failing
to investigate the 1998 allegations which were made to Mr. Geddert.
397. Defendant Twistars breached the duty of ordinary care to Plaintiffs and the public by failing
to report the 1998 allegations, which were made to Mr. Geddert, to law enforcement.
398. Plaintiffs, as members the public, in taking the recommendation of Mr. Geddert to seek
medical treatment from Defendant Nassar had a reasonable expectation that Defendant
Nassar would carry out medical treatment without subjecting them to sexual assault, abuse,
or molestation.
399. By seeking medical treatment from Defendant Nassar, a special, confidential, and fiduciary
400. Defendant Nassar owed Plaintiffs a duty of ordinary care in carrying out medical treatment
at Defendant Twistars facilities.
66
401. Defendant Twistars failure to adequately train and supervise Defendant Nassar while he
was at their facility breached the duty of ordinary care.
402. Defendant Nassars conduct at Defendant Twistars facility, in sexually assaulting,
abusing, and molesting Plaintiffs in the course of and under the guise of rendering medical
treatment was a breach of the duty to use ordinary care.
403. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs suffered and
continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical
C. COUNT TWENTY-SIX
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT TWISTARS
paragraphs.
406. Defendant Twistars intentionally or negligently made representations that Defendant
Nassar was their employee, agent, and/or representative.
407. On the basis of those representations, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that Defendant Nassar
was acting as an employee, agent, and/or representative of Defendant Twistars.
molestation as described above.
67
409. Plaintiffs were injured because they relied on Defendant Twistars to provide employees,
agents, and/or representatives who would exercise reasonable skill or care.
410. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant Twistars negligent failure to train or
capacity.
D. COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN
paragraphs.
412. Defendant Twistars each had a duty to provide reasonable supervision of its employee,
agent, and/or representative, Defendant Nassar, while he was in the course of his
employment, agency, or representation of Defendant Twistars when he interacted with
young female athletes including Plaintiffs.
sexually abuse children and young women, including Plaintiffs, unless properly
supervised.
414. Defendant Twistars by and through their employees, agents, managers, and/or assigns,
knew or reasonably should have known of Defendant Nassars conduct and/or that
68
Defendant Nassar was an unfit employee, agent, and/or representative because of his sexual
interest in children and young adults and due to the 1998 complaint made to Mr. Geddert
of the nonconsensual sexual touching during treatment.
415. Defendant Twistars breached its duty to provide reasonable supervision of Defendant
Nassar, and permitted Defendant Nassar, who was in a position of trust and authority, to
416. The aforementioned sexual abuse occurred while Plaintiffs and Defendant Nassar were on
the premises of Defendant Twistars, and while Defendant Nassar was acting in the course
of his employment, agency, or representation of Defendant Twistars.
417. Defendant Twistars tolerated, authorized and/or permitted a custom, policy, practice or
such individuals, with the result that Defendant Nassar was allowed to violate the rights of
persons such as Plaintiffs with impunity.
418. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant Twistarss negligent failure to supervise,
capacity.
E. COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT

69
paragraphs.
420. Defendant Twistars knew or should have known that Defendant Nassar posed a risk of
harm to Plaintiffs or those in Plaintiffs situation.
421. As early as 1998, Defendant Twistars, by a complaint made to its
owner/employee/agent/representative John Geddert, had direct and/or constructive
knowledge as to the dangerous conduct of Defendant Nassar and failed to act reasonably
and responsibly in response.
422. Defendant Twistars knew or should have known that Defendant Nassar committed sexual
assault, abuse, and molestation and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct.
423. Defendant Twistars had a duty to warn or protect Plaintiffs and others in Plaintiffs
situation against the risk of injury by Defendant Nassar.
fiduciary relationship between Defendant Nassar, an agent/representative/employee of
Defendant Twistars and Plaintiffs.
425. Defendant Twistars breached said duty by failing to warn Plaintiffs and/or by failing to
take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs from Defendant Nassar.
426. Defendant Twistars breached its duties to protect Plaintiffs by failing to detect and/or
uncover evidence of sexual abuse and sexual assault, which was taking place on its
premises and at its facility.
427. Defendant Twistars breached its duties to protect Plaintiffs by failing to investigate
Defendant Nassar, adjudicate and suspend and/or ban Defendant Nassar from Twistars
sanctioned events.
70
428. Defendant Twistars failed to adequately screen, counsel, and/or discipline Defendant
Nassar for physical and/or mental conditions that might have rendered him unfit to
discharge the duties and responsibilities of a physician with their organization, resulting in
violations of Plaintiffs rights.
429. Defendant Twistars willfully refused to notify, give adequate warning, and implement
430. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant Twistarss negligent failure to warn or
protect, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock, emotional
capacity.
F. COUNT TWENTY-NINE

paragraphs.
432. Defendant Twistars allowed Defendant Nassar to be in a position where he could sexually
assault, abuse, and molest children and young adults at its facility and other places.
433. A reasonable person would not expect Defendant Twistars to tolerate or permit their
employee, agent, or representative to carry out sexual assault, abuse, or molestation.
71
434. Defendant Twistars held Defendant Nassar in high esteem and acclaim which in turn
encouraged Plaintiffs and others to respect and trust Defendant Nassar, seek his services,
and to not question his methods or motives.
435. Defendant Twistars protected Defendant Nassar in part to bolster and sustain his national
and international reputation in the gymnastics community, and Twistars reputation in the
gymnastics community.
436. A reasonable person would not expect Defendant Twistars to be incapable of supervising
assault, abuse, and molestation on their premises and at their facility.
437. Defendant Twistars conduct as described above was intentional and/or reckless.
438. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant Twistarss intentional infliction of
emotional distress, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, shock,
G. COUNT THIRTY

paragraphs.
440. From approximately 1996 to September 2016, Defendant Twistars represented to Plaintiffs
and the public that Defendant Nassar was a competent, ethical, and safe physician.
72
Defendant MSU and a National Team Physician with Defendant USAG, Defendant
Twistars represented to Plaintiffs and the public that Defendant Nassar was safe,
trustworthy, of high moral and ethical repute, and that Plaintiffs and the public need not
worry about being harmed by Defendant Nassar.
individuals, at times at Defendant Twistars facility.
443. As early as 1998, Defendant Twistars knew their representations of Defendant Nassar were
false as Defendant Twistars received a complaint of Defendant Nassars conduct.
444. Between the time of the 1998 complaint and September 2016, Defendant Twistars
continued to hold Defendant Nassar out as a competent and safe physician.
445. Plaintiffs relied on the assertions of Defendants Twistars and several Plaintiffs continued
to seek treatment of Defendant Nassar in the wake of known concerns and dangers.
446. Plaintiffs were subjected to sexual assault, abuse, and molestation as a result of Defendant
Twistars fraudulent misrepresentations regarding Defendant Nassar.
447. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant Twistarss fraud and misrepresentation,
capacity.
73
IX. CLAIMS AGAINST NASSAR
A. COUNT THIRTY-ONE
ASSAULT & BATTERY

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
DEFENDANT LAWRENCE NASSAR
paragraphs.
449. The acts committed by Defendant Nassar against Plaintiffs described herein constitute
assault and battery, actionable under the laws of Michigan.
450. Defendant Nassar committed nonconsensual sexual acts which resulted in harmful or
offensive contact with the bodies of Plaintiffs.
451. Specifically, Defendant Nassar committed acts which caused injury to Plaintiffs by
subjecting them to an imminent battery and/or intentional invasions of their rights to be
free from offensive and harmful contact, and said conduct demonstrated that Defendant
had a present ability to subject Plaintiffs to an immediate, intentional, offensive and
harmful touching.
452. Defendant Nassar assaulted and battered Plaintiffs by nonconsensual and unwanted digital
vaginal penetration, digital anal penetration, and touching some of Plaintiffs breasts
without notice or explanation of the treatment.
453. Plaintiffs did not consent to the contact, which caused injury, damage, loss, and/or harm.
454. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant Nassars negligent failure to train or
74
capacity.
B. COUNT THIRTY-TWO

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT LAWRENCE NASSAR
paragraphs.
456. Defendant Nassar used his authority and position with Defendants MSU and USAG to
sexually assault, abuse, and molest Plaintiffs, and an unknown number of other individuals,
minors, and young adults.
457. Defendant Nassar in committing acts of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation as described
above under the guise of medical treatment exhibited conduct that is extreme, outrageous
and/or reckless in nature.
458. A reasonable person would not expect their physician to sexually assault, abuse, or molest
them, and to do so under the guise of medical treatment without proper notice or
explanation, and without giving the patient the opportunity to refuse treatment of that
nature.
459. Defendant Nassars conduct was intentional or reckless as he repeatedly sexually assaulted,
abused, and molested Plaintiffs over several years, from approximately 1996 to 2016.
460. Defendant Nassars conduct has caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs to suffer
emotional and psychological distress.
461. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendant Nassars negligent failure to train or
75
capacity.
X. DAMAGES - FOR ALL AFOREMENTIONED CAUSES OF ACTION
paragraphs.
463. As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants conduct, actions, or inactions, Plaintiffs
464. The conduct, actions and/or inactions of Defendants as alleged in the above stated counts
and causes of action constitute violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional and Federal rights as
well as the common and/or statutory laws of the State of Michigan, and the United States
District Court has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate said claims.
465. In whole or in part, as a result of some or all of the above actions and/or inactions of
Defendants, Plaintiffs have and continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the
violations.
466. The amount in controversy for each Plaintiff exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of
$75,000.00.
76
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court and the finder of fact to enter a Judgment in Plaintiffs
favor against all named Defendants on all counts and claims as indicated above in an
amount consistent with the proofs of trial, and seeks against Defendants all appropriate
damages arising out of law, equity, and fact for each or all of the above counts where
applicable and hereby requests that the trier of fact, be it judge or jury, award Plaintiffs all
applicable damages, including but not limited to compensatory, special, exemplary and/or
punitive damages, in whatever amount the Plaintiffs are entitled, and all other relief arising
out of law, equity, and fact, also including but not limited to:
a) Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined as fair and just under the
circumstances, by the trier of fact including, but not limited to medical expenses, loss of
earnings, mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation, and embarrassment, violation of Plaintiffs
Constitutional, Federal, and State rights, loss of social pleasure and enjoyment, and other
damages to be proved;
b) Punitive and/or exemplary damages in an amount to be determined as reasonable or just by
the trier of fact;
c) Reasonable attorney fees, interest, and costs; and,
d) Other declaratory, equitable, and/or injunctive relief, including, but not limited to
implementation of institutional reform and measures of accountability to ensure the safety
and protection of young athletes and other individuals, as appears to be reasonable and just.
77
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: February 13, 2017 /s/ David S. Mittleman__________________

David S. Mittleman
ChurchWyble PC, a division of
Grewal Law, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane AMSU Doe,
Jane BMSU Doe, Jane CMSU Doe, Jane
DMSU Doe, Jane EMSU Doe, Jane
FMSU Doe, Jane GMSU Doe, Jane
HMSU Doe, Jane IMSU Doe, and Jane
JMSU Doe
Ph.: (517) 372-1011
Fax: (517) 372-1031
Dated: February 7, 2017 /s/ Mick S. Grewal__________________

Mick S. Grewal
Grewal Law, PLLC
DMSU Doe, Jane EMSU Doe, Jane FMSU
Doe, Jane GMSU Doe, Jane HMSU Doe,
Jane IMSU Doe, and Jane JMSU Doe
Ph.: (517) 372-1011
Fax: (517) 372-1031
78
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs JANE GMSU DOE, JANE HMSU DOE, JANE IMSU DOE, and JANE JMSU
DOE, by and through their attorneys, ChurchWyble, PC, a division of Grewal Law, PLLC,
hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims set forth above.
Dated: February 14, 2017 /s/ David S. Mittleman__________________

David S. Mittleman
Grewal Law, PLLC
DMSU Doe, Jane EMSU Doe, Jane
FMSU Doe, Jane GMSU Doe, Jane
HMSU Doe, Jane IMSU Doe, and Jane
JMSU Doe
Ph.: (517) 372-1011
Fax: (517) 372-1031
Dated: February 14, 2017 /s/ Mick S. Grewal__________________

Mick S. Grewal
Grewal Law, PLLC
DMSU Doe, Jane EMSU Doe, Jane FMSU
Doe, Jane GMSU Doe, Jane HMSU Doe,
Jane IMSU Doe, and Jane JMSU Doe
Ph.: (517) 372-1011
Fax: (517) 372-1031
DSM/MSG/NLE
79

Jane Does V MSU, Lawrence Nassar, USA Gymnastics

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Jane Does V MSU, Lawrence Nassar, USA Gymnastics

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 1:17-cv-00029-GJQ-ESC ECF No. 28 filed 02/14/17 PageID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RACHAEL DENHOLLANDER, JANE

JANE GMSU DOE; JANE HMSU DOE;

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY;

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND ..................................................................................... 1-79

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION ................................................... 6-11

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.......................................................................................... 11-13

III. PARTIES AND KEY INDIVIDUALS ............................................................................. 13-15

IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................... 15-23

V. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................... 23-27

A. Jane GMSU Doe ..................................................................................................... 23-24

B. Jane HMSU Doe...................................................................................................... 24-25

C. Jane IMSU Doe ....................................................................................................... 25-26

D. Jane JMSU Doe....................................................................................................... 26-27

VI. CLAIMS AGAINST MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEFENDANTS................... 27-51

A. COUNT ONE Violations of Title IX ................................................................... 27-31

B. COUNT TWO Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. 1983 ................................ 31-35

D. COUNT FOUR Gross Negligence v. MSU, Nassar ............................................ 37-38

E. COUNT FIVE Negligence v. MSU, Nassar .......................................................... 39-40

F. COUNT SIX Vicarious Liability ........................................................................... 40-41

G. COUNT SEVEN Express/Implied Agency ......................................................... 41-42

H. COUNT EIGHT Negligent Supervision .............................................................. 42-44

I. COUNT NINE Negligent Failure to Warn or Protect ........................................... 44-46

J. COUNT TEN Negligent Failure to Train or Educate ............................................ 46-47

K. COUNT ELEVEN Negligent Retention ............................................................... 47-48

L. COUNT TWELVE - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ......................... 48-49

M. COUNT THIRTEEN Fraud and Misrepresentation ............................................ 49-51

VII. CLAIMS AGAINST USA GYMNASTICS .................................................................... 51-63

A. COUNT FOURTEEN Gross Negligence v. USAG, Nassar ............................... 51-53

B. COUNT FIFTEEN Negligence v. USAG, Nassar ............................................... 53-54

C. COUNT SIXTEEN Vicarious Liability .............................................................. 54-55

D. COUNT SEVENTEEN Express/Implied Agency .............................................. 55-56

E. COUNT EIGHTEEN Negligent Supervision ...................................................... 56-57

F. COUNT NINETEEN Negligent Failure to Warn or Protect ............................... 57-59

G. COUNT TWENTY Negligent Failure to Train or Educate ................................ 59-60

H. COUNT TWENTY-ONE Negligent Retention ................................................... 60-61

I. COUNT TWENTY-TWO Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ............... 61-62

J. COUNT TWENTY-THREE- Fraud and Misrepresentation .................................... 62-63

VIII. CLAIMS AGAINST TWISTARS .................................................................................. 64-73

A. COUNT TWENTY-FOUR Gross Negligence v. Twistars, Nassar ..................... 64-65

B. COUNT TWENTY-FIVE Negligence v. Twistars, Nassar ................................ 65-67

C. COUNT TWENTY-SIX Express/Implied Agency ............................................. 67-68

D. COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN Negligent Supervision ........................................... 68-69

E. COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT Negligent Failure to Warn or Protect ..................... 69-71

F. COUNT TWENTY-NINE - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ............. 71-72

G. COUNT THIRTY Fraud and Misrepresentation .................................................. 72-73

IX. CLAIMS AGAINST NASSAR ......................................................................................... 74-76

A. COUNT THIRTY-ONE Assault and Battery ...................................................... 74-75

B. COUNT THIRTY-TWO Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ................. 75-76

REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................ 77-78

JURY DEMAND ...........................................................................................................................79

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COME Intervening Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys CHURCHWYBLE,

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION

when the sexual assaults took place.

treatment for a knee complaint.

3. Defendant Nassar came highly recommended to Plaintiffs as a renowned orthopedic sports

medicine physician, purportedly well-respected in the sports medicine community,

than a competent and ethical physician.

in various positions and capacities.

various positions and capacities.

Twistars, who referred athletes to his care.